Implementing the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan: PBO briefing

NCOP Finance

11 May 2021
Chairperson: Mr Y Carrim (ANC, KZN) & Mr E Njadu (ANC, Western Cape)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Select Committee on Finance

Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan

The Select Committee on Finance received a briefing from the Parliamentary Budget Office on the progress of the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan. President Ramaphosa first presented the Recovery Plan to a Joint Sitting of Parliament in October 2020. The objectives of the Recovery Plan are to create jobs, re-industrialise the economy, accelerate economic reforms, and to fight crime and corruption while improving the capability of the state.

The PBO warned that the information inits presentation was not official. The information was raw and a more substantive analysis was required. It had to use its judgment on how to present the information. It highlighted the fact that there may be duplications in the reporting. Inadequacies had been identified in three agricultural grants. For example, although agriculture indicated a 126% progress performance, this did not mean that the reporting was correct. The over-performance” may have been an indication of a 26% duplication. The PBO had hoped to obtain information in a more useful way for oversight purposes”. It was of the opinion that the best way to report any information linked to budgets was through a legal system. The 2020 developmental indicators showed that poorer provinces rely heavily on the budget allocations. When expenditure is cut there needs to be a clear indication from the government on what it will mean for service delivery in particularly rural communities. South Africa’s vaccination programme has not taken off as expected and this would affect economic recovery. All the indicators that are in the new Medium-Term Strategic Framework need to be reflected in the relevant Annual Performance Plans. The progress on the Recovery Plan will not be audited. Some of the longer term infrastructure projects listed in the Recovery Plan are not funded. There is no new money in the new budget. The new money was supposed to come from the Loan Guarantee Support Programme which turned out to be a dismal failure”. The next zero to six months seem to be focused on a ‘post-Covid-19 future’ rather than asking ‘how do we get through the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallouts? The Recovery Plan is side-lined when it needs to fit into the broader scheme. There are some things being implemented but lots of what is being reported on is sort of saying we are getting our plans and ducks in a row”.

Members wanted to know what changes the forthcoming budget would bring for the Recovery Plan. There was concern over a number of projects that were unfunded because an unfunded project remains a dream”. Members were worried that not enough focus was being placed on the small business sector. Members requested some background information about the National Economic Development and Labour Council and whether it had any legal standing. There was a concern raised that the Community Work Programme hadground to a miserable halt”. Members wanted to know which authority was in charge of making decisions about the Recovery Plan. What criteria is being used to identify provinces who are deserving of the economic interventions? Concerns were raised about Mpumalanga being excluded from the benefits of the Recovery Plan. Members wanted to know whether the PBO had access to quarterly reports or whether they received reports at the end of the financial year. How far was the government with job creation towards the target of 2021 to 2022? Members were concerned about the upcoming third Covid-19 wave. No scientist can say with certainty what it means”. It was suggested there be a full briefing from tgovernment as a whole, lead by the relevant departments, discussing the future of the Recovery Plan. There were talks about having the R350 grant continued if the budget allowed it.

 

Meeting report

The Chairperson initially allocated 45 minutes to the presentation of the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO). Mr D Ryder (DA, Gauteng) suggested that an hour be allocated towards the PBO presentation given the content and complexity of the topic. He supported the one hour suggested presentation time that the PBO requested. Mr S Du Toit (FF+, North West) agreed with Mr Ryder that the PBO be given sufficient time to make its presentation since the meeting was scheduled for three hours. He said its no use rushing and having to come back again”. The Chairperson agreed with Committee members that sufficient time must be given to the PBO. An hour was therefore allocated to the PBO for its presentation.

Presentation by the Parliamentary Budget Office

The presentation was led by Dr Dumisani Jantjies, Director: PBO, followed by Dr Nelia Orlandi, Policy Analyst: PBO, Dr Seeraj Mohamed, Deputy Director for Economics: PBO, Mr Siphethelo Simelane, Finance Analyst: PBO, and Mr Rashaad Amra, Economist: PBO.

Dr Jantjies said his team would try to provide key messages without leaving out important information during the presentation. They had limited time to provide a substantive analysis. Given that the information came from different entities in the government, the presentation would be long. The presentation aims to provide key issues for consideration to the Committee Members overseeing the Recovery Plan. Members could use this briefing as a status update and as a way to invite the government to provide a substantive update of key issues. Interventions were made on existing government programs, so one should be able to get the required information from the government.

To provide context, the presenter highlighted three key areas that the PBO prioritised and considered important for oversight. The National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) agreed on a Recovery Plan which recognised aggressive infrastructure investment ”, employment-orientated strategic localisation, re-industrialisation, export promotion”, and enabling conditions and a supportive policy environment”. The intervention was broken up into short-, medium- and long-term plans. The short-term interventions need to build consumer, investor and public confidence. It aims to kick-start the economy and to deepen industrialisation through localisation, while mitigating the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on society and the economy. There were, however, pre-existing economic challenges prior to the pandemic.

In April 2020, President Ramaphosa, through the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), announced R100 billion in support of job protection and creation in response to the Covid-19 pandemic over the medium-term. Further, it was stated that the stimulus would enable the creation of a cumulative 2.5 million direct jobs by the end of the 2021/22 and 5 million jobs by 2023/2024”. There was a provisional allocation of R19.6 billion in 2020. From the R19.6 billion, approximately R13 billion had been allocated to 11 departments in order to implement the Presidential Employment Stimulus. In the current budget, a provisional allocation of R11 billion was made for the public employment initiative.

It was reported in the presentation that SARS Integrity Promotion Unit (IPU) had drafted the Social and Ethics Committee Terms of Reference and is awaiting approval of the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Framework. SARS Criminal Investigations has thus far led to 29 convictions in the current financial year.

The PBO is continuing with the plans it already had and hopes to intensify them with specific emphasis on an inclusive economy. It hopes to have an inclusive approach in both race and gender, localisation, rebuilding competitiveness, and being able to export more and rebuild the productive base of the economy. Part of that would come out of the NEDLAC process.

The presentation included various qualifications and conditions due the uncertain nature of the pandemic and the national context generally.

[see presentation attached for details]

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked the PBO for its very comprehensive report on the progress made”. He asked Members to direct their questions toward specific sectors of the presentation. This was because the presentation was split between five presenters, each covering a sector. The Chairperson then opened the meeting to discussion.

Mr Ryder thanked the PBO for its presentation. It was important for the Recovery Plan to be scrutinised within the context of what has happened since the Plan’s announcement by the President. In terms of budget allocation, not a lot of agility exists inside a year. Some of the Department of Trade and Industrys (DTI) projects were not necessarily projects that specifically spoke to the Recovery Plan but they were probably existing projects that have been adapted to fit into the Recovery Plan. He hoped to get a better understanding of where things were going in terms of the forthcoming budget.

He said there were a number of projects that were unfunded, and thatan unfunded project remains a dream”. He wanted more information on the budgeted programmes and allocations that were coming up in the budget. How would these programmes and allocations be linked to the Recovery Plan? Is there a link between the Recovery Plan and the National Development Plan (NDP)? Should there be a link? Is the link strong enough? The NDP is the broad overarching plan and the Recovery Plan could link very closely to it because some of the same themes run strongly between the two.

He then asked the PBO to give the Committee some background information about NEDLAC, its history and what its legal standing is. The Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) and the DTI came up quite strongly. He felt that not much focus was placed on small businesses. Since the Recovery Plan has an interdepartmental and inter-ministerial type of focus, he wanted to know who was coordinating amongst the various departments. Who is giving the Recovery Plan momentum? Is it something President Ramaphosa himself is driving? Or has an inter-ministerial team been set up to drive the Recovery Plan and give it focus? He asserted that it would be dangerous if it is not focused on. It would enable individual departments to continue to go in the same trajectory that theyve been on”. There was a slide on sugar which made no sense; more information was requested on this.

The progress from both the Departments of Transport, and of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA), was extremely slow. This was concerning. When looking at the issues surrounding CoGTA and the Community Work Programme (CWP) workers, the CWP has ground to a miserable halt”. There are many people who rely on the CWP payments, as small as they are”. The ability that the CWP gives workers, to up-skill themselves and to get exposure and independence from the CWP, is important. In the southern half of Gauteng, the CWP seems to have ground to a halt. The dispute amongst the implementing agents in Gauteng may have played a role. He said it was splendid to see that the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) remained active. Mr Ryder expressed that he was disappointed to see CoGTA obtain 0% considering that Minister Dr  Dlamini-Zuma holds such a key position.

Ms D Mahlangu (ANC, Mpumalanga) affirmed that the Committee was aware of the PBO not being the implementor of the Recovery Plan. The PBO is merely giving information in as far as progress is concerned”. This helps improve oversight. In the presentation, the PBO spoke of the Deputy Minister having identified six provinces. Without really being a cry-baby”, she asserted that Mpumalanga needed to have been identified amongst the six. Mpumalanga is mostly a rural province and experiences less economic activity. Ms Mahlangu mentioned the issues of agriculture and mineral resources. There are no real economic interventions in these sectors. If the PBO was the Department responsible, as Mr Ryder asked, who decides?”Whomever the authority is making decisions, what criteria do they use to identify who is deserving of the economic interventions? She was concerned that Mpumalanga was being excluded and forgotten” in everything. There were talks about the Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission (PICC). Did the PBO have access to the quarterly reports or does it receive reports at the end of the financial year? If the understanding and reality was that the PBO had no access to the quarterly reports then this would be a problem. The reports should be made available for public consumption. The PBO is an institution in Parliament that needs to assist and empower public representatives by giving access to information. Access to information enables public representatives to exercise better oversight. Ms Mahlangu regarded not having access to the progress reports as problematic.

Mr M Moletsane (EFF, Free State) referenced page 28 of the presentation which addressed the R100 billion in support of job protection over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. Mr Moletsane wanted to find out from the PBO, in terms of the reports at their disposal, how far (in percentage terms) the government was at job creation in accordance with its 2021/22 targets.

Mr Z Mkiva (ANC, Eastern Cape) enquired about the funds that would go into rural communities. He said that there needed to be knowledge of how much was allocated to each province. This is needed to ensure that the money was properly monitored and it can be escalated if it did not make a difference in helping rural communities. He wanted exact amounts that were allocated to Limpopo, Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal and so on. He wanted to know how much would be spent on developing rural communities and the projects that would be done. He wanted to ensure that the work done is in compliance with the funds allocated. Mr Mkiva delivered his questions in isiXhosa, a language in which he was comfortable speaking.

Mr S Du Toit (FF+) asked for a translation since no translation services were currently available to those present in the meeting.

The Chairperson acknowledged that Mr Mkiva was entitled to speak in a language with which he was comfortable. He asked Dr Jantjies (since he also understood isiXhosa) to cover parts of the questions asked by Mr Mkiva. This was so that all those present in the meeting who did not understand isiXhosa could follow. He stated that in simple terms, Mr Mkiva raised the matter of transformation and the matter of the budget going to the rural communities which is something new. The lobbying of funds from international organisations such as BRICS and other countries was a concern. The lobbying of funds hinders the budget from making a difference in those rural communities. The Chairperson disclosed that in translating he tried to phrase Mr Mkivas questions in a nutshell. He requested Dr Jantjies to highlight Mr Mkivas question when responding to it to accommodate those who did not understand.

Mr Y Carrim (ANC) said the presentation by the PBO explored what has happened to the Recovery Plan since being introduced. It is obviously not dealing with (and is not expected to do so) the implications for the immediate and slightly longer-term future. Taking into account things such as a full roll-out of a vaccine programme and the huge implications of that, what about this third (Covid-19) wave that is coming? No scientist can say with certainty what it means. It ranges from people saying: Well, you know, itll be certainly less challenging than the second wave. Weve had our major third-wave of Europe and the second-wave of India. In any case the mutations in the Indian variant are fewer than South Africas number of variants and the strains are less likely to have the same effect here as there. Since it is essentially the failure of the Indian government to manage the spread of the virus.

Be that as it may, he said, we dont know and nobody knows. The worlds greatest scientists do not know. The fact is that this is a huge drain on the state as a whole not just the health services. Does the PBO have any ideas, taking into consideration the volatilities and uncertainties about the third-wave? There is an awareness that the PBO is not meant to answer for inadequacies in the implementation stages, that is the job of the government.

The Committee considered inviting National Treasury but regarded it important to give the PBO a platform as an independent parliamentary institution. If the National Treasury was invited, it would say that implementing the Recovery Plan was not entirely its responsibility and that other departments (like Trade, Industry and Competition) needed to be present too. The Committee cannot bring all the Departments before it. Mr Carrim suggested a full briefing from the government as a whole, lead by the relevant departments discussing where the Recovery Plan was going. Inviting the National Treasury alone would not be adequate. If Committee Members have some sort of view on how the Committee should proceed they should write to Mr Carrim. The bringing together of Committees will have to be done by higher powers”, that is, the House Chairpersons for Committees, He asserted that the PBO had the same rights as the Committee. The PBO is an institution of Parliament; it is even mentioned in the preamble of the Money Bills Act. His interpretation of what is required is that the PBO must have access to the same information as the Committee.

On the matter of translation, he supported the idea of letting people speak in any language they wished. He found it outrageous that Khoi and San languages were hardly recognised. He indicated that he spoke for himself, that at first it was funny, Carrim will translate, knowing full well I cant do it”. Now the matter was becoming tiresome. In the Zoom chatroom and orally, there were requests for a translation after Mr Mkiva spoke in isiXhosa. He asserted that there was no excuse for him not to speak isiZulu when 98% of the people he politically interacted with are not white or Indian or so-called coloureds. They are African people who are the people that vote for the ANC party. He said that it is shameful that he is unable to speak isiZulu. It is outrageous that 50 years later he is still unable to speak isiZulu. There is no excuse. Non-Africans should also be clear that it is now 27 years later, post-democracy. That I do not speak isiZulu, is no excuse really, nobody needs to translate for me, its my problem”. He had stopped people from translating to him in ANC meetings when he was the only non-African present. This issue to have transformation was raised in the year 2000. He reminisced about a time when public hearings were held on the section 185 Bill in different cultural and religious language groups. A “wonderfully charming old man” came to the hearings; he said that he spoke northern Ndebele. The old man expressed concern about the recognition of his language. About two years later, a non-Nguni speaking person, in a Committee that Mr Carrim was chairing, raised a matter that he was not going to translate what he had said. Mr Carrim then raised the matter of having a language laboratory. He asserted that there was no need to translate to him what Mr Mkiva had said in isiXhosa. He would check with an Nguni speaking person or use an online translator.

Ms Mahlangu withdrew a statement she had made in relation to Mr Carrim not being able to understand Nguni languages.

The Chairperson directed the attention of the Committee toward the PBO, which was given an opportunity to respond to the various questions asked by Members.

Dr Jantjies said that the questions from the members were very enriching. The presentation was meant to empower the community with the information. The information given out was raw” and a more substantive analysis was required. The point the PBO wanted to raise was the issue of getting information in a more useful way for oversight purposes”. They had a short time to do the work and even in their request for information there was a delay. Legislation empowers the PBO to request information. There was so much to be done with little time to do it. The purpose of the presentation was to give members an indication of what happens. He said that Parliament needed an enquiry on how useful information is compiled from the government’s side. It was not easy to monitor and report on measuring the impact or progress of the Recovery Plan. 

Mr Ryder asked whether there was a link between the Recovery Plan and other government projects.

Responses

Dr Jantjies directed the Committee to the seven points on page 13 of the presentation. Each point is labeled a priority and falls under the 2019 to 2024 Medium-Term Strategic Framework (MTSF). Priority two spoke about Economic Transformation and Job Creation and most of the Recovery Plan interventions were within that priority. The Recovery Plan is side-lined when it needs to fit into the broader scheme. Some of the issues are not entirely new and it should be easy to report on those. The data in the presentation was important to compile. It ensures adequate monitoring over time and allows one to request from the government the roll-out of information in a way that shows the impact of the interventions in the economy and society at large.

Dr Jantjies confirmed that the Chairperson had summarised the points raised by Mr Mkiva adequately. He would now respond to them. The 2020 developmental indicators showed that the poorer provinces relied heavily on the budget allocations. When expenditure is cut there needs to be a clear indication from  government on what it will mean for service delivery in particularly rural communities. There is a need for the Recovery Plan to take greater advantage of regional markets and to put focus on regional integration. Globally, and also in South Africa, the economic recovery is heavily reliant on the roll-out of the vaccination programmes. The President spoke about Apartheid on Vaccinations. The vaccination programmes from Western countries like the United States of America and the United Kingdom have been very successful. In comparison, South Africa’s vaccination programme has not taken off as expected and this will affect the recovery.

Dr Orlandi would respond to Mr Ryder and Ms Mahlangus questions which relate to access to information and the link the Recovery Plan had to other government policies like the NDP. She directed the Committee to page ten of the presentation. She said the reporting system consisted of monthly reports to the Presidential Coordinating Committee (PCC). The PBO does not know where the information comes from because it is not official information. Although the Recovery Plan is also partly funded through the budget, the reporting is not done through the standard budgeting system. This makes it very difficult to report information that is not official. The progress on the Recovery Plan will also not be audited. She said the best way to report any information linked to budgets which have been appropriated is through a legal system. While completing her PhD she focused on the implementation of the NDP. Her findings revealed that the reporting system existed outside of the government’s system. This was the main issue and the main blockage to implementation and obtaining results for the first five years. Attempts are being made to reduce those blockages by communicating with departments. All the indicators that are in the new Medium-Term Strategic Framework need to be reflected in the relevant Annual Performance Plans (APPs). What this means is that on a quarterly basis, those targets will be reported on in the quarterly performance system. This is an official system and an official process that has been driven by the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). Members are encouraged to support this one programme or the intervention of the DPME. This would enable the PBO to extract information from the quarterly performance reports the next time they are requested to present on the MTSF. A large database was created with all the information. The PBO has access. She was very hesitant to report information that could not be reconciled with the information captured in the quarterly performance reports. This is why she had indicated to the Committee that the reports were received from unofficial sources. A monthly report to the PCC is not an official resource that can be reconciled with other performance information. In terms of transport the indicators are very poor. They are not specific and one is unable to measure the targets. The PBO has created an annual report on the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA). PRASA is the indicator. It does not give the PBO the information it wants to report to the Committee since some of the transport are funded by conditional grants. This means that the PBO has to wait for the end of the financial year to receive any progress on the output of conditional grants. Although the National Treasury reports to the Committee on expenditure, they do not report on the performance of conditional grants.

Dr Orlandi had requested the reasoning behind this and it was said that performance information was the responsibility of the DPME. The DPME, however, said that it was not their mandate to report on conditional grants. There exists a huge gap in acquiring official information. The diagram on page 10 was shown to members to illustrate the performance issues and difficulties around reporting official data to the Committee. Dr Orlandi discovered that the information shared during the State of the Nation Address could often not be reconciled with the official data of departments. She wanted to emphasise the importance of having official information and including indicators of plans outside of the standard government processes. They need to be included in those processes. There is no new money in the new budget. There is only money that has been reprioritised toward the first part of the year for social development and health. There is also a preliminary allocation for job creation in terms of the presidential interventions. This money would only be allocated during the adjustments budget. What is important is to measure the current performance of all those projects, specifically the ones presented by Mr S Simelane. This is to ensure that the PBO is able to allocate the additional R11 billion. If there was no performance on the current R12.6 billion why would  government perform on the R11 billion? The majority are EPWP jobs and the R11 billion does not have a carry through effect on the budget; it comprises once-off jobs. Is that the way that we want to go or do we want to create sustainable jobs with that R11 billion?”.

Dr Mohamed said that doing the project was really hard because there were diverse sources of information. A lot of information was not official within the PFMA Framework. To some extent the PBO had to use their judgment on how to present the information. There were many uncertainties. Since October 2020 there had been various things which caused a constraint on development. Another concern was that the PBO received snippets of narrative reports and some PowerPoint presentations. They are unsure of how government departments communicate with one another. From the outside looking in, it seems like there is no easy way to give an indication of progress on projects based on the way departments share and communicate information with one another. Lots of drafts and terms of references and coordination plans were seen within the report on the Recovery Plan. This made it difficult to compile a concise indication of progress. This is information that Members should hear from specific departments or even from the Presidency. In terms of looking at the budget, a lot of the implementation was being done within the existing amounts budgeted. Dr Mohamed said that he was unable to fully cover Mr Ryders question because he is unfamiliar with what has been happening in NEDLAC for the past few years. There are very real difficulties that exist when thinking through the various plans and navigating one’s way through them. It makes sense to bring in specific groups of departments.

On links to the NPD: Part of what the Recovery Plan is doing is refocusing attention on some areas more intensely than others, like localisation, building small businesses, villages, townships and enterprises. The aim is for more inclusivity and to focus on public infrastructure and the states role in that. These would be a refocus within existing plans. How much can be done if we are faced with the third Covid-19 wave? He said that we were in the process of a vaccination drive that will help us move out of the Covid-19 lockdown. These issues could be placed on the agenda prematurely and a lot of the focus should be on relief and support to poorer households and struggling businesses. The way in which budgets are allocated should actually be cognizant of that. There is a lot of redirecting of existing funds. The next zero to six months seem to be focused on a ‘post-Covid-19 future’ rather than on asking how do we get through the Covid-19 pandemic and its fallouts? On the issue of transformation, and especially increased funding and budgeting towards township and village enterprises in rural areas, most of these projects are being funded within the existing budget with emphasis to have both budgetary and non-budgetary support and interventions. He tried to list the ones he had received from the Department of Trade and Industry and documents from the Small Business Department by looking through the funding. There are ongoing discussions on how to make financing available and for the better funding of small and medium size enterprises. There is a lot of work to be done in terms of getting frameworks and agreements, sorting out legislation and coordinating while also trying to implement. There are some things being implemented on the ground but lots of what is being reported is sort of saying we are getting our plans and ducks in a row”. He concluded by thanking the Committee for the opportunity.

Mr Njadu left the meeting and Mr Carrim took over as Chairperson and moved the meeting onto the second round of questions from the Committee Members.

Mr Ryder said that he was really impressed by the interactions. The PBO had answered questions he did not even ask. He found this quite nice to see. He thanked the Chairperson for permitting a second round of questioning. There was no clear picture of how this whole thing [ERRP] is being coordinated and by whom”. He may have missed the answer since he lost connectivity for about 10 minutes. He was unsure of whether he could see from where this whole thing is being pulled together and by whom”. If there is no additional money in the budget for the Recovery Plan then this brings into sharp focus the need to go back to the drawing board budgeting”. Every project within every department needs to be reassessed to determine if it is going to form part of the Recovery Plan. This is done in order to see if the project will contribute towards growing the economy and taking South Africa forward. The analysis from the PBO that there would be no new money given towards the Recovery Plan is quite an important one. This means that recovery and reconstruction needs to happen out of the existing purse. He said this was a big ask and it foregrounded the need to refocus the money being spent and scrutinisng where it is being spent.

One of the slides that was hurried over quite quickly” related to how the R12 billion had been applied. He wanted to ask more questions about the expenditure of this money to see if that is really being put to best use”. He did not have a chance to properly interrogate the slide. He requested that the PBO take the Committee through that particular slide again. Go into more detail of what those projects are and where the money is being spent. Are they catalytic projects? Are they things that are going to cause a chain reaction once they get implemented? If you create infrastructural capacity it encourages growth. What else is being planned? The DTI carries a massive burden; they generally focus on the larger industries. Sufficient focus is not being placed on the small business sector and empowering the informal trader. The person that is trying to get themselves up and started. When looking at the failure rate of small businesses it is a cause of concern. He concluded by asking for an analysis on where the money is being spent and whether we are happy. The Committee had been well-covered by the PBO thus far.

The Chairperson said that Mr Mkiva must unapologetically speak in isiXhosa.

Mr Mkiva said that the Committee must deal with this issue of translation to ensure consistency. He ideally would not want to speak this European language anymore going forward”.

The Chairperson encouraged Mr Mkiva to speak isiXhosa. He said that his point is not that Mr Mkiva must speak in English. He does not have any sympathy for himself, he said. He is dealing with his own frustrations not Ms Mahlangus. He was mad at himself. He had tried to raise the issue of translation twice and it was communicated that they dont have the people”. He asserted that he was not on the side of anyone but on the side of right”. The topic of Nguni domination also came up when a non-Nguni speaking person refused to translate which gave rise to an issue. He said that he would find out what the latest policy is on the translation issue.

Mr Mkiva alerted the Chairperson on what Mr Ryder had posted in the Zoom chatroom. We need to act very responsible here and not attack each other. We are trying to decolonise our society. Everything cannot be changed instantaneously because we do not want to cause anarchy and chaos. The fact that the title Honourable One” is being used does not mean that that is an end in itself. Those matters will holistically be dealt with. We take one step at a time. He asked Mr Ryder to be responsible and to act like an adult.

Mr Ryder responded by saying likewise”.

The Chairperson intervened saying there is no need for all of this”. There is no debate about this. Mr Mkiva is absolutely right: he is entitled to speak in his language. The Chairperson asserted that he rarely uses the word Honourable”. He stopped using it because it is a colonial term in his view. Those who want to use it can use it in Sesotho or Tshivenda or whichever language is applicable. The issue is not about whether you use HRH”, rather, it is the right of people to speak their language not least the Khoi and the San and other traditional communities. Can we not fight now, please?”. He said that Mr Ryder is saying something which has nothing to do with language but rather colonialism. “Matter resolved, Mr Ryders point is irrelevant.”

Mr Ryder responded by saying that the Chairperson misinterpreted the message he had sent in the Zoom chatroom. In the Zoom chatroom he had asked Mr Mkiva Why then have a European title?  HRH?”. This was after Mr Mkiva stated that he would not like to speak this European language anymore going forward”. Mr Mkiva had the title HRH” (short for His/Her Royal Highness) in his Zoom display name and this is what Mr Ryder alluded to. He concluded his response to the Chairperson by stating that this was not worth arguing about”.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee could move on since there is no debate. Mr Ryder was not disputing the right of Mr Mkiva or the right of anybody to speak any indigenous language. All that is being asked is for the Chairperson to check the policy on interpretation. Committees do not have the interpretation service when conducting virtual meetings.

Mr Mkiva said he raised the interpretation issue because the answers always fall short as a result of the non-understanding on the part of the presenters. It is fine for today as long as we resolve this matter going forward”.

The Chairperson said he would seek to address the issue of language interpretation during meetings. Just because Mr Mkiva speaks English does not mean he should not speak isiXhosa. When you pose questions or make contributions in a language you are most familiar with, a lot of the nuance and meaning you invest in that cannot be easily invested in another language.

He raised the point that the PBO never said that they had new money. This inspired the Who-Ha from the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). The PBO had never pretended that there would be new money. The new money was supposed to come from the Loan Guarantee Support Programme which turned out to be a dismal failure. A decision was taken across political parties that although there is recognition of the considerable constraints on the budget we know that if you dont give that small R350 grant a disaster will befall us”. In the last budget report both Finance Committees agreed they would urge the National Treasury to consider extending the grant. He asked the PBO to comment on whether it would be financially destructive to extend the grant or whether the consequences of not extending the grant would be much greater. On the grant they have done quite a lot of work already. Think about it and let us see how other Committee Members feel about it in the weeks ahead when we look at appropriations.

Dr Jantjies confirmed that the PBO would look into the Chairperson’s suggestion. The question of whether the Recovery Plan would coordinate it is a question that government would have to respond to. The way in which information is being put out makes it difficult to get that information together in a meaningful way.  It would certainly make it difficult for MPs to process and perform oversight. 

There has probably been a short bit of time to have very meaningful progress on how far the Recovery Plan has gone on. Most of the things that were set out in the Recovery Plan are already within  government’s programmes, so it should be easier to take out information and put it out there. Committees need to request that information be easy to monitor and measure. The issue of rural areas and the retainment of the budget is very important. Local development is a very important part and should be centred. The need for coordination of economic development and growth has to be committed at all levels of the government. Dr Orlandi would answer the question of the R12 billion.

The Chairperson asked whether the PBO had any ideas where the R17 billion could be extracted and reprioritised from.

Dr Jantjies said that the relief was only seen as an expenditure. It is not an expenditure in isolation; it is an economic enabler as well.

The Chairperson said that for a moment he had forgotten the economic or tax side of it. R17 billion as a whole will be going back into the economy. He was thinking more of the social polarisation, the turn towards volatility, social protest, the political management of the society in conditions like that.

Dr Orlandi said that the reason she gave the ballpark figure of R17 billion was because the PBO had previously given the presentation to the Standing Committee on Appropriations the Appropriations Bill. Last year the allocation was R 17.6 billion, and over 12 months between 4.4 million and 6 million people were beneficiaries of the grant. In this years appropriation there was more than approximately  R2 billion and an extra R2.8 billion has been added to tally it to over R5 billion in the current budget. At this stage over R5 billion is in the budget. When the expenditure was last checked it was R17.3 billion. This is why she just had the R17 billion in mind. This is basically what the PBO spent last year.

Mr Ryder asked whether PBO should go back to the drawing board. In some instances they really do have to go back to the drawing board in terms of duplication, expenditure and certain frameworks. The reason they started that whole project of looking at the frameworks of conditional grants is so important. They had identified a lot of inefficiencies within the three grants in agriculture. The Committee was then referred to slide 30. The Committee asked about the R12.6 million for the Presidential employment intervention. There was a mix in terms of the performance. Agriculture indicated that they had performed at 126% but it does not mean that the reporting is correct. Even just in agriculture the purpose of the grants is also to create jobs. When a report is made on the grants it reports from the EPWP jobs, which is funded from another source. There might be a bit of duplication in reporting if they over-performed by 26%. Cooperative Governance did not spend any of their money to create jobs and are still in the process of doing so. It is uncertain when Cooperative Governance will start spending their money. Mr Carrim had asked what would happen in the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statements. The PBO is trying to get actual information expenditure but the fourth quarter expenditure reports are not out yet. That would give the PBO a very good indication of what will happen in the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statements in terms of vaccine rollovers and in terms of funds returned to the revenue fund.

The Chairperson checked with Mr Ryder to ensure that he was happy with the reply from the PBO in response to his questions. Mr Ryder was happy with the response from the PBO.

He asked Members whether the meeting could be drawn to a close. Members who wanted to raise anything burningly important” were invited to do so. The Bills are coming a bit slow from the National Assembly. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, the Treasury has not been churning things through the cabinet process either. Members would normally be lumbered with lots of bills in this quarter but it has not yet happened. He apologised to the PBO and accepted responsibility for botching the programme; he assumed the meeting would be in the morning. He had browsed through the PBOs submission and picked up a lot from its presentation. Overall the PBO has been very helpful. The National Council of Provinces will look into joining briefings with the National Assembly to save the PBO from having to repeat the same briefing to both. It may be difficult to achieve this because of the lack of synergy that exists between the two Houses of Parliament. Mr Ryder mentioned the public comment at the moment on Financial Sector Laws Amendment Bill from the National Assembly side”. The Chairperson said that he was aware of this.

Mr Du Toit asked for how many months the R17 billion would last.

Dr Jantjies suggested that the PBO compile a written response to Mr Du Toits question because this is more of an annual event.

The Chairperson said that R17 billion could surely be found in this particular context of a large budget. R17 billion is small in a way. Weve got big problems and we cant afford to forgo any cent”. Given that South Africa will be going through a rough time for the next three years, there is no idealism here. It will be horrific if the R350 grant, as small as it is, is forgone. Let us try to engage with Treasury and be pragmatic but let us not forgo what we agreed to in our fiscal framework. It was referred to the Appropriations Committees and they were dealing with it.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: